In a full committee markup that was focused on school lunch dietary standards, the full House Appropriations Committee this week approved its FY2015 ag/FDA spending package.

Under the measure approved, $20.9 billion in discretionary spending is appropriated for USDA, FDA and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).  The bill also includes $142.5 billion in mandatory spending, $3 billion less than approved last year.

Rejected in the House bill is the USDA plan to close or consolidate county Farm Service Administration (FSA) offices.  The bill report calls the plan "flawed and untimely" and requires USDA to conduct workload assessment for all offices slated for shutdown.  

The CFTC gets a total of $218 million for the next fiscal year, $3 million more than last year, but $62 million less than requested by the White House.  Report language accompanying the CFTC spending lines also tells the commission to "provide clarity to market participants" and change the rules governing swaps dealers as required by Dodd-Frank.  The CFTC was provided $53 million to buy new technology, but was criticized for not providing a five-year plan on how that money would be spent.

FDA gets $25 million to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and gets $2.6 billion in discretionary spending.  Related to FSMA implementation, the spending lawmakers included in the report which accompanies the bill - which most agencies treat as formal requirements - language warning the FDA commissioner her agency is taking an "overprescriptive" approach to the writing of regulations, including the animal foods performance standard ("feed rule") proposed rules.  Similar language was included in the Senate's version of the ag/FDA spending bill approved in committee last week.

"Accordingly, FDA shall ensure all FSMA regulations are risk-based, flexible and science-based, and embrace the well-established and recognized standards for food safety already employed throughout much of the industry," according to the report.  

Consuming most of the committee's debate were amendments offered by Democrats in an attempt to remove from the bill a provision which allows school districts to opt out of the USDA school lunch dietary standards.  Some school districts are complaining the "buy-local, more-veggies" standards are expensive and children in several districts are walking away from the new menus, even though the standards are strongly supported by First Lady Michelle Obama.  The second focus of the panel was an amendment that would take white potatoes out of the list of eligible foods that can be purchased as part of Women, Infant, Children (WIC) food packages.  Both amendments failed.

The GOP side of the House Judiciary Committee this week took aim at the Obama Administration's enforcement of current immigration law, telling Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson his department's action are lax and "likely unconstitutional." The GOP contends the President is working "around Congress," and likely violating the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.

Johnson disagreed, and said some DHS actions are necessary to give the House time to act on comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  Other critics of the committee's words said this is just political grandstanding to give credence to House leadership's contention it can't move immigration reform legislation until the President gives a public commitment he will enforce the law as Congress enacts it.  

In Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte's (R, VA) opening statement at the oversight hearing he said, "The Obama Administration has taken unprecedented and likely unconstitutional steps in order to shut down the enforcement of our immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough priorities...twisting the concept of 'prosecutorial discretion' beyond all constitutional recognition."

At issue is the Administration's 2012 decision not to deport certain classes of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children, along with a more recent White House announcement it will study the possibility of other executive action as it applies to more "humane" treatment of arrested and detained illegal immigrants.

With the broad biofuels industry expending heavy lobbying capital to convince the White House and EPA to increase the 2014-15 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) for biofuels from levels proposed in late 2013,  word is the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has completed its review of the agency's draft final recommendation and EPA should make its decision known soon.  While some say it could come late Friday, it's more likely the rollout will be closer to the middle of next week.

In a related RFS development, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a federal ethics watchdog group, wants EPA's Inspector General (IG) to investigate the agency's actions when it first proposed cutting the RFS below statutorily mandated levels.  The group specifically wants the IG to look at whether the Carlyle Group, a group of private investors, and Delta Airlines "improperly influenced" the draft rule, according to a Reuters report.  Carlyle and Delta own two Philadelphia area oil refineries.  "The public has a right to know whether this decision was based on policy or politics," CREW told Reuters.

Consensus intelligence and various reports pin the final RFS for corn ethanol, proposed at 13 billion gallons, at around 13.6 billion gallons.  EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has hinted the ethanol component would increase, having told several audiences recently EPA's proposal was based upon gasoline production and consumption data from late fall, 2013.  The final RFS will be based on the most recent data, she said.  The petroleum industry currently projects increased gasoline demand through the rest of 2014.

For the advanced biofuels category, which includes biodiesel from both oilseed and animal feedstocks, as well as renewable diesel and non-corn ethanol, the final biodiesel number is expected to be very close to the proposed RFS of 1.28 billion gallons.  The overall advanced biofuel RFS is expected to come in slightly higher than originally proposed at 2.2 billion gallons.

The National Biodiesel Board (NBB), the National Renderers Assn. (NRA) and the American Soybean Assn. (ASA) have pushed for a biodiesel RFS level closer to the industry's estimated 2014 production of 1.7 billion gallons.  NBB as recently as last week warned President Obama in a letter that to ignore calls for a higher advanced biofuels RFS is to "cause lasting, damaging consequences for the jobs and economic activity supported by the biodiesel industry."  

Meanwhile, a bipartisan majority of the House has told McCarthy they want to see a reduced corn ethanol RFS along with a rewrite of the RFS authority, according to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA), chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  Goodlatte is the author of HR 1462, a bill to eliminate the corn ethanol RFS and requires EPA to set the cellulosic ethanol RFS at production levels.   

Goodlatte said that in addition to the lawmakers, 50 organizations representing a broad spectrum of U.S. business and environmental groups also want a lower ethanol RFS.  The Virginia lawmaker's office said 218 House members have either cosponsored legislation to reform the RFS or have signed letters to EPA calling for RFS changes. 

The first-ever federal rulemaking to control emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from existing power plants - and its implications for all of industry - is expected to be released by EPA June 2.  The rulemaking, expected to dictate not only emissions levels, but technology which must be used to control emissions, is a lynchpin in President Obama's  Climate Change Action Plan because it focuses on utilities, identified as the nation's single largest source of GHG.

At the same time, the agency released the third iteration of its "Climate Change Indicators in the U.S." report, saying, "Climate change is a serious problem and it's happening here in the U.S. and around the world." EPA's report, the first update since 2012, lists four developments affecting the country as a result of climate change, including increased Lyme disease incidence, wildfires, heating and cooling degree days and increases in Great Lakes water temperatures.

The expected rulemaking has generated substantial political controversy, with opponents calling it a "war on coal" and citing its expense to consumers, while environmental groups see it as just the first step in controlling GHG emissions and a means of validating climate change as a "nontoxic" political issue.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report this week saying the rulemaking, if finalized, will cost the economy $51 billion a year, kill off 224,000 jobs each year, and force consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity, all through 2030.  The analysis is built off a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) recommendation to the Obama White House in 2012 on carbon reduction, and insiders say the proposed rulemaking is expected to follow the NRDC plan.

Another factor in the EPA rulemaking is the inevitability of multiple legal challenges that could take years.  Currently, several states are asking the White House to ensure the new rules give them options for meeting GHG control standards, including using carbon trading or "cap-and-trade" programs to meet compliance standards.